Yes and No. Can I say it's done both? With social media there are a lot of bloggers/social media sites out there that spread and share false, terrible quality, and downright wrong facts about things. If you can sort out the ones with a bad reputation or the ones that are untrustworthy, then yes social media has definitely increased the quality of news and information. But there are so many outlets to get news and information online that sorting the false information from the true can be overwhelming. And sometimes information on social networking sites can be the journalistic equivalent of water cooler gossip.
Social media is now probably the fastest way of spreading news and can do so even before a reporter publishes or broadcasts a story, but this immediacy of information can sometimes be error-prone, particularly in cases of tragedies or natural disasters. Breaking news on twitter shouldn’t be taken at face value; it should really be taken with a grain of salt.
And now with social media the average Joe can post theirs opinion instead of big news owned corporations. That is a good and bad thing – should I trust someone I can’t see, and the average joe could just be rambling off any bit of information without sources or proof. But on the flipside, more voices add much more conversation to the story.
Another benefit of social media on news is now most sites, you're able to give your own feedback, thoughts, and opinions and leave comments on what YOU think. Most newspapers have followed suit allowing their users to post comments, and email their favourite articles.
I don‘t think traditional news really had a choice but to follow social medias example.
I cannot wait to read your responses.